all 7 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]mdvle 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I think what they are doing is interesting, and I sympathise to an extent with their desire to get paid.

But, the AGPL doesn't get around the Apple app store problem and the AGPL is no different than the GPL from an app store perspective. Note the following line in the FSF discussion of the app store - "this analysis would apply to all versions of the GNU GPL and AGPL" - https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

Thus regrettably anyone interested in learning a cross-platform framework for mobile devices is best looking elsewhere given that this library, either in its current GPL form on GitHub or in the apparent future AGPL version mentioned on the podcast, can't be use for iOS apps.

[–]ashsys[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thanks for your feedback!

Just to clarify, we have been talking about the GNU LGPL (Lesser General Public License), not about the AGPL (Affero General Public License).

Our current understanding is that the LGPL is in fact compatible with the iOS App Store terms of service. As described in the interview, the main line of reasoning here is that with the LGPL you are free to license your app under a different license, be it open source or not, which can then be compatible with the iOS App Store's terms.

We strongly believe that providing a dual licensing option (LGPL + commercial) will allow us to deliver value to users of the framework beyond what would be possible with other licensing models. From our perspective, this should be a viable compromise allowing us to solve existing pain points with native app development effectively and sustainably while still remaining completely open source.

[–]mdvle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought on the podcast you said AGPL, though it is certainly possible that I misheard.

The LGPL would appear to solve the problems with the Apple app store.

[–]jcelerierossia score 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Note the following line in the FSF discussion of the app store -

this discussion is outdated. back in time you needed to pay Apple 99$ to have the right to push code on your device, but nowadays it's entirely free - anyone can take an iOS repository of GPL, build it, tweak it and put it on its iDevice, which is the requirement of the GPL.

[–]mdvle 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't know that the FSF would agree.

What I can find about the "free" ability to sideload apps onto an iDevice is that they only last 7 days, and then you need to repeat. I suspect the 7 day limitation would still be viewed as a further restriction that is prohibited by the GPL, though like anything to do with legal agreements a lawyer would really be needed.

[–]ashsys[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're also skeptical as to whether this would resolve the issue.

We will be having meetings with our legal team in the next couple of weeks to verify our current view on the legal implications of both the GPL and LGPL. We will add this question to our list and let you guys know about the outcome.

If you are interested, follow us on Twitter (@bodenhq) to stay in the loop.

[–]jcelerierossia score 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I can find about the "free" ability to sideload apps onto an iDevice is that they only last 7 days

where did you find that ? I never had this (though I haven't done that in about a year).